Another rushed law, another death knell for privacy

[tmcd35]

However, yours is not technically relevant because there isn't a car ban law being proposed.

 

Also, a car ban actively prevents an individual from engaging in an activity, driving a car. Data retention doesn't in or of itself enable or prevent anything as far as the users of the service are concerned. What it does do is provide a mechanism for relevant authorities to gain additional information that may make or break a case along side more traditional methods of investigation.

 

That said, I think I might need to go and glance over the proposed bill again as I feel I might have missed something in relation to surveillance powers.

[localzuk]

Technically it's not a false dilemma. The words "knew for certain" were added.

However, yours is not technically relevant because there isn't a car ban law being proposed.

 

It is a false dilemma, as the "knew for certain" is nonsensical (the dilemma being "sign this bill into law or your family would die"). Nothing in life is "certain", except death. Its relevant, because its a hypothetical situation that has no place in this discussion, just like the one I replied to.

 

Also, a car ban actively prevents an individual from engaging in an activity, driving a car. Data retention doesn't in or of itself enable or prevent anything as far as the users of the service are concerned.

 

It does prevent something - the ability to go about your life without people analysing it. Ie. It prevents you having a private life, which is one of the few rights enshrined into international law.

Edited July 16, 2014 by localzuk

[DPrince]

Totally relevant, it shows how the 'what if it was your family' dilemma has no place in sensible debate.

 

No - it was technically an absurd proposition, because he's argued against a proposition (which may or may not have been a good one) with one which was not relevant.

 

The original hypothetical question (no, I didn't like it either) related to a law that exists. You can't bounce the same question back using an absurd law that isn't being proposed in order to show that the first question is similarly absurd.

You should note that I'm speaking technically... obviously you can actually do whatever you like, but some people will go "tsk" and shake their heads.

[localzuk]

No - it was technically an absurd proposition, because he's argued against a proposition (which may or may not have been a good one) with one which was not relevant.

 

The original hypothetical question (no, I didn't like it either) related to a law that exists. You can't bounce the same question back using an absurd law that isn't being proposed in order to show that the first question is similarly absurd.

You should note that I'm speaking technically... obviously you can actually do whatever you like, but some people will go "tsk" and shake their heads.

 

The law doesn't exist... It hasn't passed the Lords yet.

[DPrince]

It is a false dilemma, as the "knew for certain" is nonsensical. Nothing in life is "certain", except death. Its relevant, because its a hypothetical situation that has no place in this discussion, just like the one I replied to.

 

Then you can't argue against it on the basis of it being a false dilemma. You argue against it on the basis that it is nonsensical. Besides which, it wasn't a false dilemma anyway, although the words "knew for certain" (given that it's a hypothetical) were perfectly valid.

 

It does prevent something - the ability to go about your life without people analysing it. Ie. It prevents you having a private life, which is one of the few rights enshrined into international law.

 

Data retention, in and of itself, does not prevent this. Given that data about individuals is retained ALL the time, and thousands of organisations will hold and scrutinise data about you, most of which you have given up willingly, this is a difficult argument to make.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

The law doesn't exist... It hasn't passed the Lords yet.

 

LOL. Pedant.

[GREED]

Annoyed I have joined this party so late, most of my best antagonistic lines have already been mentioned.

 

I had a rather interesting article through the post (yes, post!) From the OU talking about the dichotomy between Security and Privacy, and how traditionally there needs to be compromise between one to improve the other... its a piece of crap both in the way it is written as well as the conclusions that actually one does not oppose the other... I will dig it out and post it... somewhat relevant.

[DPrince]

Yes and also yes.

 

We have laws in place that allow the detainment of suspects.

 

They suspected something was wrong but chose to do nothing, then tried to use it as a reason they needed more surveillance.

 

Without knowing the full circumstances, you are making a lot of assumptions. And then tied all those assumptions up to come to a conclusion.

 

Lee Rigby killed by persons known to authorities = conspiracy to increase surveillance.

 

It's possible that they were known to the authorities (I'm saying 'authorities' because I don't know who they were known to), but the authorities didn't know they were intending to murder someone, on that street, on that day. Possibly, with more surveillance, they might have done.

Of course, detaining suspects who haven't actually committed a crime is a different argument - seems odd to argue against increased surveillance, but be ok with detaining suspects willy-nilly. And certainly some of those laws which you're relying on were controversial when they came in (and still are).

 

My view? Sh*t happens, and sometimes people learn from it. Sometimes we don't like the lessons. Sometimes, we find the lessons so unpalatable that we decide we'd rather take the risk of more sh*t happening. Sometimes we don't. But it's generally not an conspiracy, and it's not always incompetence. Sometimes these things just happen.

[X-13]

Lee Rigby killed by persons known to authorities = conspiracy to increase surveillance.

 

Nope. I'm saying 2 separate things.

 

1. The killers were known and left to their own devices.

 

2. After the fact, the authorities claimed they could have stopped it if they had more surveillance powers. Without mentioning that they were aware of the killers already with the powers they had.

Edited July 16, 2014 by X-13